C E COOPER Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had raised the simple question that a demand raised on 16-1-1997 for property tax for the period from 1-4-1981 to 31-3-1997 is bad in law as demand for tax for more than three years from the date of the demand cannot be raised. It is also argued that in the notice given to the petitioner mentioned Rs.4,031-50 as having been already paid by him whereas actually the petitioner has paid Rs. 5,131/-. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.No. 13700/1995 dated 10-7-1995 by a Division Bench of this Court wherein the Court held that arrears of tax has to be recovered within the time permissible under the Limitation Act.

(2.) Submission is advanced by Smt. Jyothi Kiran, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the amendment to Section 238 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') by addition of proviso by Andhra Pradesh Act 3 of 1994 vests the Corporation with the power to recover the arrears under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act and because of such provision, the law of Limitation would have no bearing on the question of recoverability of the-tax. It is her submission that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made by reason of the proviso under the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) The submission is totally misconceived. The question was directly gone into in the cited case in W.P.No. 13700/1995 and was negatived holding that there is nothing in the proviso which dispenses with the application of the Limitation Act.